CONSERVATION AS A MATTER OF CONTEXT
Ogechukwu Elizabeth Okpalanozie in conversation with Hanna B. Hölling, Samidha Pusalkar, Juliana Robles de la Pava, and Marcello Rechberger
Solarisation process. The infested object is wrapped in an acid-free cloth and subsequently wrapped in a black polyethylene sheet and placed in an improvised solar tent (Image source: https://www.icom-cc-publications-online.org/5687/Solarization-treatment-on-insect-infested-wooden-artefacts-in-Nigerian-museums–A-case-study)
As part of the ongoing conversations within the Critical Conservation project, on May 19, 2026, we had the pleasure of welcoming Ogechukwu Elizabeth Okpalanozie, Conservator at the National Museum, Lagos of the National Commission for Museums and Monuments in Nigeria, for a thought-provoking discussion on the decolonization of conservation practices, the recognition of community-based conservation knowledge, and the importance of sustainability and situated approaches in conservation methods.
Trained as a conservator and researcher with a background in Microbiology (Ph. D.) from the University of Lagos, Nigeria; Heritage and Interpretation (M.A.) at the University of Leicester; and Museology from the Institute of Archaeology and Museum Studies, Jos, Nigeria, Ogechukwu has participated in numerous international initiatives and projects, including ICCROM’s Reducing Risks to Cultural Heritage, the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, and the Preventive Conservation Working Group of ICOM-CC. Her work has been deeply engaged with conservation of cultural heritage, oral history, repatriation processes, and the involvement of Indigenous communities and indigenous knowledge systems in Nigeria.
At the beginning of our conversation, Ogechukwu emphasized the urgent and ongoing need to decolonize conservation. For her, this process cannot remain limited to institutional discourse or symbolic gestures but requires questioning the assumptions that continue to shape conservation standards and definitions of expertise. During the ICOM-CC Roundtable Discussion at the 27th ICOM General Conference, The Future of Museums in Rapidly Changing Communities held in Dubai, where Indigenous knowledge emerged as a central topic, she argued that conservation must become more attentive to the diverse forms of knowledge developed through long-term relationships between communities, materials, and environments. Rather than treating conservation as a universally applicable set of methods, she advocated for a more situated understanding of how care is produced, transmitted, and sustained across different cultural contexts.
Ogechukwu described conservation not simply as the technical treatment of objects, but as a process of understanding their material histories, uses, and social meanings. Drawing on examples such as leather craftsmanship and community-based care practices, she highlighted how knowledge about preservation is often embedded within everyday interactions with materials. These forms of expertise, developed through generations of observation and practice, offer valuable insights into how objects have been maintained within particular environmental and cultural conditions. Recognizing such knowledge expands conservation beyond the museum and invites a broader understanding of who participates in the production of conservation expertise.
Wooden head (Image source: https://www.icom-cc-publications-online.org/5687/Solarization-treatment-on-insect-infested-wooden-artefacts-in-Nigerian-museums–A-case-study)
This perspective becomes particularly visible in the case of wooden objects and textiles that continue to participate in festivals, ceremonies, and community practices. In some instances, objects move between museums and communities, temporarily returning to cultural contexts before re-entering institutional collections. Such movements challenge the assumption that preservation necessarily depends on removing objects from use. Instead, they reveal heritage as a living process sustained through ongoing relationships between people, objects, and practices. Conservation, from this perspective, involves maintaining those relationships rather than simply stabilizing material forms.
Ogechukwu emphasized that communities remain important stakeholders in conservation of ethnographic collections, even when museums classify them as artworks. In traditional African setting, these objects are not primarily understood as “art” but as living cultural entities embedded in ritual, social, and spiritual life. This perspective raised an important question during our discussion: who is conservation ultimately for? Museums, exhibitions, and institutional audiences often shape conservation priorities, yet Ogechukwu argued that conservation must also remain accountable to the communities from which these objects originate and whose histories and identities continue to be bound up with them.
Ogechukwu also shared her experience working with indigenous conservation techniques, including solarization (Okpalanozie and Kamndu 2023) and the use of non-chemical substances and locally available materials. Many conservation standards developed in Europe and North America, she explained, are not always practical within Nigerian contexts due to differences in climate, resources, and material traditions. Earlier preservation practices often relied on environmentally responsive methods, such as exposing objects to sunlight to eliminate pests, without dependence on industrialized chemical treatments. Similar resonances emerged in discussions of conservation practices in India, Latin America, and other formerly colonized regions, where local knowledge systems have likewise been marginalized within dominant conservation frameworks.
Solarization offers a compelling example of how locally grounded approaches can provide effective and sustainable alternatives. Rather than positioning Indigenous and scientific conservation methods in opposition, this technique demonstrates the potential for productive exchange between different knowledge traditions. The use of sunlight derives from longstanding community practices, while contemporary conservation protocols contribute methods of monitoring, documentation, and preventive care. The significance of such approaches lies not only in their effectiveness but also in their ability to broaden what counts as conservation knowledge within professional practice.
Our conversation also explored why certain conservation methods are frequently perceived as more legitimate than others. Practices rooted in everyday experience or community traditions are often dismissed as overly simple, informal, or lacking sophistication, while approaches associated with specialized technologies or imported materials tend to carry greater authority. Ogechukwu questioned these assumptions, noting that effectiveness is not necessarily linked to cost, complexity, or foreign origin. This discussion opened onto broader questions concerning the global circulation of conservation technologies and the unequal access many institutions have to expensive imported supplies and equipment.
At the core of this discussion was a broader question about legitimacy: why are certain forms of conservation knowledge more readily recognized than others? Ogechukwu argued that many community-based practices remain overlooked not because they are ineffective, but because professional conservation frameworks have historically privileged particular forms of scientific authority. Yet many locally developed approaches are deeply attuned to environmental conditions, economically accessible, and grounded in long-term experience with the materials they seek to preserve. For her, the challenge is not proving the validity of these practices but creating the conditions through which they can be standardized, documented, discussed, and recognized within the field.
An important part of our exchange also focused on the conservation of conservation knowledge itself: how knowledge is transmitted across generations and sustained over time. Ogechukwu explained that in Nigeria many practices remain closely tied to familial and craft-based forms of transmission, where expertise is shared among artisans, families, and communities of practice. Despite the dominance of professional training grounded in European scientific traditions, recently, indigenous forms of knowledge continue to circulate through workshops, conferences, and community initiatives. She emphasized that awareness about indigenous method of conservation could be created by acknowledging local practices as valuable forms of expertise and creating forums such as workshops, seminars and even conferences where communities can actively contribute to conservation discourse. She mentioned that at National Museum, Lagos, local leather craftsmen came to the museum with the support of International Institute for the Conservation of Artistic and Historic Works (IIC); and taught conservators the indigenous method for conserving leather objects.
Rather than threatening the role of professional conservators, the inclusion of community knowledge expands and reshapes the field itself. Conservators do not lose their relevance; instead, they take on new roles as collaborators, facilitators, and mediators working alongside communities and artisans in more reciprocal and context-sensitive ways.
Throughout the conversation, conservation emerged not as a fixed or universal discipline, but as a practice shaped by context, relationships, and multiple forms of expertise. Rather than advocating for the replacement of scientific conservation, Ogechukwu proposed a more plural approach in which scientific knowledge, community practices, and Indigenous epistemologies can inform one another in synergy. Such a perspective shifts attention from the question of which methods are most authoritative to how different forms of knowledge might collaborate in responding to contemporary conservation challenges. In this sense, the future of conservation lies not only in developing new techniques, but also in creating more inclusive ways of understanding care, stewardship, and cultural continuity.
References
Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
International Council of Museums (ICOM). (2025). The Future of Museums in Rapidly Changing Communities. Proceedings of the 27th ICOM General Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Okpalanozie, O.E. (2024). “Taking proactive steps: conservation and leadership in a changing world.” Routledge Open Research, 3:13.
Okpalanozie, O.E. and Kamndu, I.B. (2023). “Solarization treatment on insect-infested wooden artefacts in Nigerian museums: A case study.” In ICOM-CC 20th Triennial Conference Preprints: Working Towards a Sustainable Past, Valencia, 18–22 September 2023.
Procter, A. (2020). The Whole Picture: The Colonial Story of the Art in Our Museums & Why We Need to Talk About It. London: Cassell.